The essence of the three-pillar framework is to allow the possibilities of a possible third party. Sandole, who modified it to provide stratagem on how to manage conflict, thought up the method itself. Conflict is defined as a changing phenomenon, which is characterized by continuing phases of initiation, escalation, management as well as maintenance. The manifest conflict situation can be described as a situation where at least two parties or the representatives try to find their perception of mutually unrelated goals by undermining each other’s ability to pursue those goals.
The Essence of the Three-Pillar Framework
The conflict of debate in this paper focuses on the Middle East, between two Middle Eastern nations, which are Iran and Israel. The subject of contention in the debate emphasizes on the influence of their proxy groups, which is Hezbollah. As much as the majority populations in both countries may be Arab, they share little ideologically and mostly cooperate out of economic necessity. The three-pillar approach in this context starts by identification of the parties involved. These as stated earlier are Iran and Israel. Both are sovereign entities and are, thus, represented by an army of diplomats on the foreign relations front as well as by their presidents, when looking from an executive point of view.
Now that the ‘who’ aspect has been dealt with, the issue on the table is the next step of the process. What are the two parties fighting about? The cause of disagreement revolves around the Hezbollah terrorist group. The Arab nations have a reason to move against Israel because of the Palestinian/Jew conflict, and Iran is one of the best-placed countries to execute an attack using the Hezbollah, which will give the nation regional credibility in the Middle East. The nature of the conflict is, thus, non-structural, because Iran seems to have ideological goals.
The Hezbollah and Iran may have a mutual goal, but Iran does not control the former’s actions. The relationship resembles that of the United States and Israel, where the former indirectly sponsor’s the latter’s activities, but America does not control all of Israel’s activities.
The objectives, according to the three pillars, should be approximately equal and opposite, such that Israel’s gain should be Iran’s loss. The Iranians are using the proxy of Hezbollah as a tool to accomplish their wants in the region, which is to gain a military advantage to weaken the nation of Israel and claim the region for Palestine. They are not willing to expose themselves in such a capacity, but it is evident as an eventual plan.
On the other hand, Israel’s objective does not seem offensive in nature rather that of self-defense in response to the attacks on a terrorist group on its soil. The objective can, thus, be termed as the protection of the citizens within its borders from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This refers to the methodology the two parties use to achieve their objectives. Iran has a partner in the crisis, which is Syria. Syria is another agitator in the Arab corner that has not had favorable relations with the Jew nation since the Yom Kippur conflict. It does not share an equal status and some experts claim that it is just along for the ride. The Iranians seem to be fully intent on using the Hezbollah to their fullest capacity. On the ground, the status of the rogue group is that of defender of the Arabs. The Israelis have the backing of the Americans and the western community to conduct military raids on the border towns of the Palestinians, allegedly pursuing Hezbollah.
Orientations and Environments
Both of the opposing parties cannot exist in peace with each other; therefore, the orientation of both groups is competitive, which is a win or lose situation. Iran and the Hezbollah are adversarial against the nation of Israel, who they view as a bully to resident Palestinians, and are enemies in the holy war. The parties of the conflict also realize that the environment is endogenous, where other parties exist outside the debate but have a hand in the conditions that take place. These third parties include other sovereignties and involved companies interested in resources in both nations.
Conflict Causes and Conditions
A partial cause of the conflict is the allied situation of the two nations, increasing the conflict situations with both Iran and Iraq. America is focused on the dethroning of a rogue leader, instead of focusing on the general problem in the region. Now Israel is in a tough position with minimal backing from a strong ally. Here, the reason implies a psychological trigger. The nature of Middle Eastern geopolitics and the Arab pathology suggests a neurosis or obsession with the Jewish land and a holy war with the people. This has a fundamental relationship with the methodology of terrorism in fighting the Jews. The ethics of holy war or Jihad does not value the life of the rightful attacker. Lose of life in an act of war is quite honorable if not advised; hence, the use of suicidal violent actions against Israel is justified just as the latter has cause to be ever vigilant is self defense.
Pillar Three: Conflict Intervention
The first and second pillars dealt with context of the conflict as well as the cause and condition, while the third pillar deals with conflict intervention. This initially includes third party initiatives that may include violent conflict prevention, conflict management, or transformation. In order to design an effective intervention for a conflict situation, one should be able to define and accurately diagnose the causes of the conflict as well as analyze all the angles. The interveners or the third parties should be able to decipher the conflict in order to determine the causes and attempt a resolution.
The Israeli, Iran situation should have a third party that comes from neither of the interested parties and should not have an indirectly vested interest in any of the parties. Neutrality is essential when especially mediating between parties fighting over rights of ideology and occupation. Mapping the conflict through systematic analysis will help bring order and ascertain progress or lack thereof. The causalities of the conflict between the Arab world and the Jews, which is the conflict’s generalization, cannot be quantified. Thus, grudges run extremely deep and there may be no hope for resolution. In this case, the best a mediating third party may hope to accomplish is negative peace.
This is short for cessation of hostilities between the two parties as debates proceed over the elimination of the root cause of hostilities, and this includes cultural and structural violence. Conflict is likely to occur in areas where capabilities are not distributed evenly across social groups. For example, the Arabs believe that Palestinians in Israel are not allowed the same amenities as their Jewish peers, especially when it comes to health, education and land rights. In these situations, frustrations flair as do claims on discrimination. Overall, when analyzing a conflict situation, one should consider the issue of relative deprivation by giving the distribution of capabilities given the reaction of the parties.